JUDGEMENT A.M.KHANWILKAR - 1. HEARD counsel for the parties. 2. AS short question is involved, petition is taken up for final disposal forthwith by consent. Although, the petitioner has named the Ex M.L.A. as respondent No. 6, on whose recommendation the impugned transfer order has been passed by the department, as we do not intend to record any finding qua him, in our opinion, respondent No. 6 is a formal party and the matter can be decided in his absence. 3. THE moot question in this petition is whether the department could have issued impugned transfer order on the basis of recommendation made by respondent No. 6, albeit approved by the Chief Minister. This aspect has been considered in the recent decision of this Bench in the case of Sanjay Kumar versus State of H.P. & others, being CWP No. 801 of 2013 and companion matters, decided on 5th July, 2013. That decision has been upheld by the Apex Court and has attained finality. 4. COUNSEL for the respondents State is unable to distinguish the said decision. It is indisputable that respondent No. Is not a public representative as of now and that he had recommended transfer of the petitioner on the basis of which the impugned transfer order has been passed. Even in the present case, it is not in dispute that the impugned order does not record that the transfer is necessitated due to administrative reasons and/or in public interest. 6. As a result, in our opinion, the judgment, referred to above, applies on all fours to the fact situation of the present case. Accordingly, this petition ought to succeed. The impugned transfer order Is quashed and set aside qua the petitioner. The petitioner be reinstated at the same location and status quo ante before passing of the impugned order, dated 10th September, 2013, be restored forthwith. 5. PETITION disposed of accordingly, so also the pending application(s), if any.